In a speech to the United Nations earlier this year, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said that “Canada has taken a zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism and all forms of discrimination including rhetoric towards Israel, and attempts to delegitimize Israel such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.” When CBC reporter Neil Macdonald asked what Blaney meant by “zero-tolerance”, a department spokesperson emailed him a list of Canada’s hate speech laws. The spokesperson followed up six days later with another email stating, “We will not allow hate crimes to undermine our way of life, which is based on diversity and inclusion.”

Here’s how the Criminal Code defines hate speech: “advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group (subsection 318(1) of the Criminal Code); inciting hatred in a public place against an identifiable group that is likely to cause a breach of the peace (subsection 319(1) of the Criminal Code) and wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code). ‘Identifiable group’ includes any section of the public distinguished by, among other characteristics, religion or national or ethnic origin.”

On that basis, some actions of the BDS movement might qualify. In promoting the boycott of Israeli goods and services, BDS not only advocates doing economic damage to the State of Israel, but its all-out destruction. When the Rolling Stones announced that they would perform in Israel on their 2014 tour, BDS set up a webpage urging them not to; when the page supposedly was tampered with, BDS posted that the “page has been under attack by unskilled Mossad-paid script-kiddies. They’ve been neutralized. Now it is time to bring the Zionist regime to it’s (sic) knees, be it by stones or with a swift kick to the wallet. Don’t bother, Rolling Stones. Israel will probably not exist come June.”

BDS boycotts often hurt the very people they are supposed to help — Palestinians who depend on Israeli jobs that produce the goods subject to the boycott.

In South Africa, drugstore chain Woolworth’s is considering legal action over picketing by BDS activists, reporting that their “employees, of all faiths and cultures, are telling us that they are feeling increasingly threatened by the protests … What’s more, the families of our employees have reported being abused and sworn at by BDS.” Ironically, many adherents of BDS, such as the United Church, support the group because of the supposed ‘non-violent’ character of a boycott.

BDS boycotts often hurt the very people they are supposed to help — Palestinians who depend on Israeli jobs that produce the goods subject to the boycott. In a case that made international headlines, the Sodastream company — famous for its ads featuring actress Scarlett Johanssen — relocated its factory from the West Bank to southern Israel in October 2014, following a dip in sales for which BDS activists gleefully took credit. According to BDS spokesperson Rafeef Ziadah, “BDS campaign pressure has forced retailers across Europe and North America to drop SodaStream, and the company’s share price has tumbled in recent months as our movement has caused increasing reputational damage to the SodaStream brand.”

Would any of this warrant the prosecution of boycotts as hate crimes in Canada? Only if they violate our laws. More effective than criminal charges might be the option of fighting them in civil court, an approach which recently got the green light in Israel. In April, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld a law allowing civil actions for damages caused to individuals, businesses and organizations by BDS activity.

The Law Preventing Harm to the State of Israel by Means of Boycott states that “he who causes a binding legal agreement to be breached by calling for a boycott against the State of Israel will not be viewed as someone who acted with sufficiently justified cause.” The law defines “a boycott against the State of Israel” as “deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or body solely because of their affinity with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage.”

In other words, there are plenty of ways for those adversely affected by BDS to fight back. Exercising one’s freedom of speech does not extend to promoting violence or hatred, and if it causes economic damage, its authors need to pay compensation. A boycott should not be a free pass to wreck livelihoods — or lives.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

41 comments on “Can a boycott movement qualify as a hate crime?”

“inciting hatred in a public place against an identifiable group that is likely to cause a breach of the peace (subsection 319(1) of the Criminal Code)”

Wow – sounds like technically, a demonstration where individuals reveal the many sins of the Harper government, naturally arousing citizens’ outrage and upset, could potentially be considered “hate speech”. Huh.

It’s only the Harper governments interpretation of an anti Netanyahu movement being an anti-semetic movement. That’s been a very convenient stick to beat back criticisms of the Israeli government used by themselves as well.

The thing that gets me about the Evangelical support is that at it’s heart it seems very anti-semitic. I mean they believe they need the Jewish people to have the holy land So Jesus can come back and he will wipe out the ones that don’t follow him and the rest will convert. Isn’t that kind of messed up? At it’s heart they want them destroyed for their religious ideology, which is kind of similar to the pagan, mysticism that the Nazi’s practiced.

Exactly! The Jews are just a means to an end for the evangelicals. And agree re the bizarre religious thread, too. Can you imagine that so many of these Harperites actually believe this stuff? I really do believe that they see Harper himself as some kind of messiah.

Contrary to what its detractors would have you believe, the BDS movement is NOT directed at Jewish communities but at the State of Israel for its consistent violations of International and Human Rights Laws. It is very targeted, only advocating for the boycott of Israeli Corporations operating in the Occupied Territories. See BDS movement Website. This has nothing to do with religious prejudice against any group of people in Canada, and in no way fits the Charter definition of hate crime.

Didn’t think I was being insulting and apologize it that’s how it came across. I guess I should have said “It seems to me that you’re off topic…” Anyway, thanks for gently pointing out how my comment appeared to you rather than just firing back.

I hope no one is so naive as to be surprised at this. Why do you think we now have a domestic secret police agency in Canada? We already have the CRA investigating organizations perceived to be opposed to the governing party.
I hope the Ottawa media don’t pretend to act surprised in the years ahead as the Conservative plans for Canada unfold.

This sounds more like another way for the Harper party to use a group of people to set in place laws that will work for them in an election or in their quest for repression of freedoms that they see as a threat to their power as authoritarians. If the Harper party understood morals and ethics they would never need laws as repressive as this.

Palestinians are useful to Israel only as long as they need slave labour. It’s like saying that this abused woman or child needs food and medicine so don’t take them out of the house that can give it to them never once considering it’s the house they are living in that is making them sick. There is no excuse for what is going on in the middle east. It’s an agenda being set up by really despicable governments, ours included, to try and destroy any rejection of corporate takeovers of countries not going willingly. Entire cultures are being destroyed willfully for corporate gain. There is nothing moral about what is happening to all these people’s lives. There is no high road being built in the Middle East by the west. We have nothing to be proud of.

“A boycott should not be a free pass to wreck livelihoods — or lives.”

Then no protest march would ever happen, no demos, no gatherings that caused money to be lost could be tolerated. Freedom to assemble will be illegal because it will incur costs, and invitations to assemble and act, will be aiding and abetting the commission of a crime. Union activity will become illegal by definition as will negotiating a pay raise in a collective manner.

If all that matters at the end of the day is that the bottom line must not be impacted, then we no longer live in a democracy, we’ve become a corpocracy.

It’s odd reading a writer in ipolitics advocating the dissolution of democracy, because a foreign government that is illegally occupying land that is not it’s own, snaps its fingers and insists that our government aide it in its criminal activity.

Well, I think something else is going on here—-not one person would be so concerned if we were talking about supporting the ANC in South Africa. In fact, when Ms Thatcher tried to back-step she quickly move and not in the right. So lets, be a wee bit more honest here. Because I’m not buying the argument given–not credible Or would you have stood against the boycott of the South African government??

What is the point of a boycott, if not to inflict economic damage? Am I not free to spend my money in whatever way I choose? Isn’t that what your precious Free Market is all about? If I choose not to shop at Wal-mart because I don’t like the way its employees are treated, do I then have to pay compensation to Wal-mart because of the economic damage I’ve caused it?

No kidding. Aren’t we not suppose to vote with our wallets if we don’t like how a company or country conducts itself? It seems the micro version of Sanctions Governments put on people and Governments’ they consider to not be playing by the rules….

Well, come on now, consider the intellectual Goliath, we are really dealing with, here? -Harper’s opinion on Israelis and against Palestinians shows as much thought as his declaration in the past:— that Mandela was a ‘Terrorist’…….Seems even then, he saw false flag boogie men every where but in his nightmares.
In other words, the last word is still out on his economic acumen, hence the balance budget that really isn’t? And his slippery-ideological painting of history and foreign affairs really confuses even him, (but only if pointed out directly to him).

If any other nation acted like Israel has acted, towards the Palestinians, the international community would have taken action. However Israel is protected by the United States (and Canada). BDS exists precisely because our governments take no action against what many consider to be international war crimes. Last summer’s war against Gaza was a game-changer. Europeans are waking up, and their governments and corporations are beginning to listen. Canada will wake up as well. I guess the question is, when?

But the real truth is,— this anti-Constitutional law is no different a political move,— than going after those poor bird-watchers in Ontario. If he can’t hype,spin,lie,— people, into at least thinking his way –then–the old ‘fear-by-any-means, (short of),– goes quickly into action.
The more off-the-wall the better,— as most normal people act as though their caught in ‘bambi’ headlights, whenever anyone is nutty-but-nervy enough,—- to try re-invert truth and reality to what they think works best for them. Its never about truth,—— it about what— political moves—- will help me win over this group?—Forgetting that the biggest number,– belong to no groups at all—And that will be the majority of voters, which will knocks him, like entitled Prentice, on their collective butts.

Ah, but you forgot to define the difference for Iraqi mothers that for years could not buy proper medicines for their babies because of ‘sanctions for decades on WMD’s that bloody NEVER EXISTED. This was long before the 1% ers (their) repositioning of MONEY AND ECONOMY above certain ‘human life’. As many in the aid communities have been saying, for at least a decade, “unless the disaster is sustainable and newsworthy then we have found people turn off and stop donating and so do governments” (including ours ).
But hey, whats human life, that has not been sanctified by those who have put themselves in the absolute positions of knowing the new and converted acceptable and what’s not—Go blow toxic air on someone else. Don’t buy your world-is-flat claims anymore than I did Thatchers.

This journalist should not be bragging about being affiliated with the Fraser Institute. They accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from the billionaire U.S. Koch brothers who promote ‘climate change denial’ and the Tea Party down south.